I have some applications I have to write for my use.
I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
of ACL to do it with.
If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> I have some applications I have to write for my use.
> I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
> of ACL to do it with.
> If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
> or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
Here's a quotation from ACL 6.1 documentation [1]:
"Note that generate-application and generate-executable are
only available in Enterprise versions of Allegro CL."
I believe this means that Trial versions of ACL are not capable of doing
what you want, so I guess you will have to use some other development
software.
[1] http://www.franz.com/support/documentation/6.1/doc/delivery.htm
Good Luck!
P.S. Even though Smalltalk is not Lisp, it's still a better solution than
BCB, in my opinion :-)
--
Richard Krushelnitskiy "I know not with what weapons World War III will
·········@gmx.net be fought, but World War IV will be fought with
http://rkrush.cjb.net sticks and stones." -- Albert Einstein
Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
> I have some applications I have to write for my use.
> I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
> of ACL to do it with.
> If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
> or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
You do know there are other Common Lisp systems besides ACL, right? ;-)
It seems really weird to me that if you can't deploy your applications
with ACL, you'd rather switch languages than implementations. I think
you can do what you want with Lispworks or Corman on Windows, or LW,
CMUCL, or CLISP on Unix. Not that there's anything wrong with
Smalltalk, it's just a bit of a drastic step.
--
/|_ .-----------------------.
,' .\ / | No to Imperialist war |
,--' _,' | Wage class war! |
/ / `-----------------------'
( -. |
| ) |
(`-. '--.)
`. )----'
"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
····················@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
>
> > I have some applications I have to write for my use.
> > I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
> > of ACL to do it with.
> > If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
> > or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
>
> You do know there are other Common Lisp systems besides ACL, right? ;-)
> It seems really weird to me that if you can't deploy your applications
> with ACL, you'd rather switch languages than implementations. I think
> you can do what you want with Lispworks or Corman on Windows, or LW,
> CMUCL, or CLISP on Unix. Not that there's anything wrong with
> Smalltalk, it's just a bit of a drastic step.
Lispworks for Windows will do that, but not int the non-commercial version.
I don't know about Corman, though.
On Wed, 26 Jun 2002 22:18:52 -0400, "Paul D. Lathrop" <········@chartermi.net>
wrote:
>"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
>····················@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
>> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
>>
>> > I have some applications I have to write for my use.
>> > I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
>> > of ACL to do it with.
>> > If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
>> > or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
>Lispworks for Windows will do that, but not int the non-commercial version.
>I don't know about Corman, though.
>
For Windows platforms, you can save applications with the free personal
version of Corman Lisp 1.5.
See the samples provided, and the product documentation for details
"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
····················@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
>
> > I have some applications I have to write for my use.
> > I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
> > of ACL to do it with.
> > If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
> > or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
>
> You do know there are other Common Lisp systems besides ACL, right? ;-)
> It seems really weird to me that if you can't deploy your applications
> with ACL, you'd rather switch languages than implementations.
Can one switch languages rather than implementations?
In any case, why compound your problems by abandoning the existing
code *and* the existing implementation?
On Thu, 27 Jun 2002 00:14:55 GMT, "Joe Marshall"
<·············@attbi.com> wrote:
>
>"Thomas F. Burdick" <···@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU> wrote in message
>····················@monsoon.OCF.Berkeley.EDU...
>> Thaddeus L Olczyk <······@interaccess.com> writes:
>>
>> > I have some applications I have to write for my use.
>> > I was wondering if it is permitted to use the free version
>> > of ACL to do it with.
>> > If not I'll go some other way ( Cincom if I'm adventurous,
>> > or I'll just stick with BCB if I'm not ).
>>
>> You do know there are other Common Lisp systems besides ACL, right? ;-)
>> It seems really weird to me that if you can't deploy your applications
>> with ACL, you'd rather switch languages than implementations.
>
>Can one switch languages rather than implementations?
>
>In any case, why compound your problems by abandoning the existing
>code *and* the existing implementation?
>
>
The code doesn't exist yet. That's why I ask to be sure I can do it
*before* I write the code.